Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.
Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.
Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:
The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.
The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.
The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]
Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:
I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.
The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.
Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.
A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]
I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:
What do we separate over?
- The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
- The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
- The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).
[from part 3]
While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.
These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”
Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.
Bob, I appreciate your thoughts on this article? Please know at the outset that I am a pastor in my mid-30’s who grew up a fundamentalist but will not call myself one any longer. While I agree with Matt’s overall approach to this series, I have to be honest and say that I am a little bothered and I think a few others are as well and haven’t been real willing to say anything. If I said that I didn’t believe the sign gifts from the first century had not ceased at my ordination council, I would not have been ordained, and I was ordained in a church very close to Matt Olson and NIU. I fully believe that they have ceased and the majority of orthodox believers have always believed this. It is what sets us apart from those that are charismatic. I am fine with the other portion of that paragraph, but this idea of not disagreeing with the non-cessationist seems to me to be agreeing with him. What stops us from having fellowship with other charismatic groups then?
Ben,
Thanks for commenting. As for non-cessationism, I think there are differences within them as far as how charismatic each are. Some charismatics are schismatic in my opinion, or have harmful teachings about the role of gifts (i.e., you aren’t Spirit-filled if you don’t speak in tongues). But cessationism could be a second tier issue as it causes some functional differences, for sure.
That being said, I’m in full agreement that cessationism is not a fundamental of the faith, and so my fellowship shouldn’t be limited to cessationists only. How far can one go in extending fellowship and recognition of non-cessationists? I believe second tier matters make it difficult to have shared organizational structures across those barriers in some settings – like the ministry of a church, and some ministerial training centers, but those differences don’t have to keep us from meaningful cooperation. The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel are examples of meaningful cooperation on the things that matter, that nevertheless brings together people with different opinions on second-tier and third-tier issues.
I think where Olson is in trouble comes from his commitment to fundamentalism, the movement and his mindset on separation which is more along the lines of TGC/T4G (it would seem). So I have no qualms about his recommendation of a SGM church. I’m happy about that. In addition, I’m personally much more open to non-cesstaionism than I used to be. Books like Sam Storms’ Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist, have been influential in my thinking on this topic.
Nice post, Bob.
I like the prioritized list concerning what we separate over. It’s a real shame that fundamentalists spend almost all of their time focusing on #2 to the exclusion of #1. The very name ‘fundamentalist’ is a mis-nomer as so many in the IFB are so woefully ignorant of Sound Systematic and Biblical Theology. I think more emphasis needs to happen in the area of #1 for that to be taken more seriously.
Your comment on the institutions and structures is DEAD ON. I’ve always said that fundamentalists are the most strongly denomination-ally minded folks I’ve ever been around. The SBC churches I attended at times as a kid were FAR more independent than many of the IFBs. Much more time needs to be devoted to Scriptural exegesis and far less to the “my circle” mentality.
Cessationism vs. continuationism has gotten to be a tougher target to nail over the last thirty years, too, because continuationism has disengaged itself from the Charismatic Movement. In other words, all Charismatics are continuationists, but these days not all continuationists are Charismatics.
You will find Calvinist continuationists these days who strongly affirm the baptism of the Spirit at conversion for all believers, and deny any signitory necessity of speaking in tongues. Others teach that tongues is always a real language, and as a result on that basis criticize Charismatic practice as unscriptural.
You’ll find preachers who believe the gift of healing for today, but then distinguish it from what the Apostles were able to do (since the Apostles could all heal prior to Pentecost). Wayne Grudem has made a systematic-theological case for non-canonical prophecy, I guess you could call it, which comes awfully close to a view of divine guidance held by many cessationist teachers.
The existence of a group that now says, “We believe in all the gifts for today, but we also believe in a closed canon, and oppose what Charismatics do” makes that group an odd bird in what used to be a simpler taxonomy.
Totally agree, Jack. One can reject the excesses and errors of charismaticism without having to bolster that rejection with an antisupernaturalism that scours the Bible for some proof text for why they’re wrong and we’re right.